Union researching investigating Philly

Post #1 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:45 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/613353558554071040[/tweet]

Dunkenstein · Post #2 » by **Dunkenstein** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:52 pm

Good luck with that.

Post #3 » by **Smitty731** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:42 pm

How did they violate the CBA? As far as I know, as much as some may not like it, they've met everything they have had to. I wonder if it has anything to do with holding players (Noel, Embiid) out. I remember hearing at various points both guys felt ready to play. I think we know this for sure with Noel, but Embiid's recent history might suggest the team has been right all along.

Curious to know what the "charges" are here.

Post #4 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:51 pm

Smitty731 wrote:How did they violate the CBA? As far as I know, as much as some may not like it, they've met everything they have had to. I wonder if it has anything to do with holding players (Noel, Embiid) out. I remember hearing at various points both guys felt ready to play. I think we know this for sure with Noel, but Embiid's recent history might suggest the team has been right all along.

Curious to know what the "charges" are here.

Denver held guys out, and the Bucks did back with Sanders before he went downhill (fast). I can look back up on Noel as I don't remember, but Embiid wasn't even doing 5 on 5's at season end so it really isn't the injuries.

I'm pretty positive its the salary floor manipulation -- legal in technicality but raising the question as to whether it meets the 'spirit' of the law. Personally, wouldn't mind seeing it change. It is easy to accept as 'paying for the cost of tanking' and part of a long term get blue chip studs plan for Philly, but if it were being used as standard operating procedure just to be cheap, I think you have a serious problem.

Then again, that doesn't cost players really, more so potential lux tax winners and other owners.

Someone speculated it could be related to the refusal to offer anything but 4 year deals to undrafted/2nd rounders. Which would make more sense to saber rattle over -- right at draft time when Philly has 5 2nds. That said, getting anything at all there seems absurd.

Post #5 » by **Smitty731** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:55 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:How did they violate the CBA? As far as I know, as much as some may not like it, they've met everything they have had to. I wonder if it has anything to do with holding players (Noel, Embiid) out. I remember hearing at various points both guys felt ready to play. I think we know this for sure with Noel, but Embiid's recent history might suggest the team has been right all along.

Curious to know what the "charges" are here.

Denver held guys out, and the Bucks did back with Sanders before he went downhill (fast). I can look back up on Noel as I don't remember, but Embiid wasn't even doing 5 on 5's at season end so it really isn't the injuries.

I'm pretty positive its the salary floor manipulation -- legal in technicality but raising the question as to whether it meets the 'spirit' of the law. Personally, wouldn't mind seeing it change. It is easy to accept as 'paying for the cost of tanking' and part of a long term get blue chip studs plan for Philly, but if it were being used as standard operating procedure just to be cheap, I think you have a serious problem.

Then again, that doesn't cost players really, more so potential lux tax winners and other owners.

Someone speculated it could be related to the refusal to offer anything but 4 year deals to undrafted/2nd rounders. Which would make more sense to saber rattle over -- right at draft time when Philly has 5 2nds. That said, getting anything at all there seems absurd.

That last part is a good point and makes some sense. I agree about the salary floor, but the players ultimately get what they would have anyway.

I'll be curious to see if any more detail makes it out. Still waiting on how Denver is dividing the money they missed the floor by.

MarkDeeks · Post #6 » by **MarkDeeks** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:56 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Someone speculated it could be related to the refusal to offer anything but 4 year deals to undrafted/2nd rounders. Which would make more sense to saber rattle over -- right at draft time when Philly has 5 2nds. That said, getting anything at all there seems absurd.

That's certainly not a violation of the rules, and even if it is a violation of the spirit, the McDaniels option exists for second rounders and the sign-somewhere-else option exists for free agents.

Dunkenstein · Post #7 » by **Dunkenstein** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:21 am

Echoing what Mark said, "They did not violate any rules, just the spirit of the rule," one league source told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "It's something the union will look to change."

Has Mark finally reached the status of "league source"? Even if it is just in Philadelphia.

DBoys · Post #8 » by **DBoys** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:15 pm

This is an interesting angle by the union.

They are adamant that teams each operate independently, to their own benefit, and avoid any conflict of interest. And the point of the CBA is to create a framework in which both players and teams can legally operate, and in which everyone's rights are protected when that happens.

Then, when the 76ers do exactly that by making a move that is CBA legal, that is in their own best interest, that serves to lessen their financial obligation, and in which every player still gets every penny they are due with no players being harmed, the union wants to object. While I understand why the union wants to always push the envelope for players (and rightly so), this is one where they need to chill out.

Post #9 » by **Smitty731** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:39 pm

DBoys wrote:This is an interesting angle by the union.

They are adamant that teams each operate independently, to their own benefit, and avoid any conflict of interest. And the point of the CBA is to create a framework in which both players and teams can legally operate, and in which everyone's rights are protected when that happens.

Then, when the 76ers do exactly that by making a move that is CBA legal, that is in their own best interest, that serves to lessen their financial obligation, and in which every player still gets every penny they are due with no players being harmed, the union wants to object. While I understand why the union wants to always push the envelope for players (and rightly so), this is one where they need to chill out.

Well said. If this is such a bone of contention, I would expect to see it placed high on the NBAPA's list in the next negotiation. But Philadelphia has done nothing wrong. I also hate that some are painting them as using "loopholes". They didn't find some unknown portion of the CBA and start exploiting it.

DBoys · Post #10 » by **DBoys** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:54 pm

So, if I understand it correctly, what Philly did "wrong" is to avoid the "below minimum team salary" supplement for its players by using the trade rules to accept added salary at the deadline, and that "added" salary is mostly something they never have to pay. So as a team, they aren't really truly paying the minimum payroll.

Is that about right?

Assuming so, I find this sort of action by the union almost humorous, because while it makes big news and PR, they are proposing robbing some of their constituency to enrich a different set. Truth is, if they ultimately file a complaint and it proves to be successful, it won't gain one penny for the players as a whole, it just takes some money from one set of players and puts it in the pocket of different ones who really didn't earn it. But it makes the union look like they are doing something significant.

MarkDeeks · Post #11 » by **MarkDeeks** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:32 am

Well, it does cost the players something. Simplified hypothetical - Salary cap is 70 million. Minimum team team salary is 63 million. Team A has a 100 million payroll. Team B has a 20 million payroll. Team A trades 40 million to Team B. Total cost for two teams is still 120 million. But had no trade been done, team A would have still paid 100 million (ignore tax for the purposes of this), while team B would have had to pay 63 million.

DBoys · Post #12 » by **DBoys** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:02 am

MarkDeeks wrote:Well, it does cost the players something. Simplified hypothetical - Salary cap is 70 million. Minimum team team salary is 63 million. Team A has a 100 million payroll. Team B has a 20 million payroll. Team A trades 40 million to Team B. Total cost for two teams is still 120 million. But had no trade been done, team A would have still paid 100 million (ignore tax for the purposes of this), while team B would have had to pay 63 million.

I think you are ignoring the adjustment later on, using the escrow setup. That event either gives to or takes back money due all players, to make the owners land at the agreed pct of BRI outcome. If Philly's players get paid $3M more than their contracts, that money effectively is coming out of the pockets of other players, when the escrow calculation is ultimately reduced by that $3M.